martin bryant was set up

Port Arthur Massacre

There is reason to think the Port Arthur massacre was planned as early 1987 when, after a specially called Premier's meeting in Hobart in December 1987, the New South Wales Labour Premier, Mr. Barry Unsworth stated, "there would be no effective gun control in Australia until there was a massacre in Tasmania"

On Sunday, 28 April 1996, at a sleepy little tourist location known as Port Arthur, something went down that will long live in memory of Australia's collective psyche. An unknown professional combat shooter opened fire in the Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur in Tasmania. In less than a minute 20 people lay dead, 19 of them killed with single shots to the head, fired from the right hip of the fast-moving shooter.

The awesome display of combat marksmanship was blamed on intellectually impaired Martin Bryant, who was held in illegal strict solitary confinement for more than 120 days, until he was "ready" to plead guilty. There was no trial. Within a matter of weeks legislation was passed to removed semi-automatic weapons from the Australian population and a gun buy-back proceeded. It is now illegal to own any semi-automatic gun in Australia.

The Port Arthur Massacre has come to be known in conspiracy circles as a "psyop". The definition of a psyop is a psychological operation or an event designed to drum up public support for some piece of legislation that would be otherwise be unpopular and probably be defeated.

It is one of the signs of a propaganda campaign when the media continuously plays up scenes that are designed to appeal to gut level instincts to soften people up for the solution to be offered.

The media were totally oriented around sensationalising the distress and trauma, played the scenes over and over, always cutting to updates on any developments and in effect the public were bombarded continuously day in and day out for weeks over the issue. At the same time a long list of facts or discrepancies were overlooked. Any calls for a royal commission fell on deaf ears, the media were later instructed not to talk about the subject anymore and the files have been closed for 30 years.

The Port Arthur massacre occurred on 28 April there was legislation prepared by mid May with plans for a national buyback of automatic and semi-automatic rifles.
Prior to 1996 Australia had huge number of sporting shooters traditionally used in time of war to both train and supplement our miniscule armed forces.

However, since the psyop at Port Arthur more than 400,000 reserve forearms have been pulped instead of stored by the Federal Government. - Joe Vialls



While gunlaws should make a country a safer place to live, in reality they are a move against the freedom and self-defence of the people.

THOMAS JEFFERSON
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government".

1-----Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938 enabling the government to round up 13 million defenceless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human beings, imprisoning them in concentration camps, and by a conscious process of attrition, destroyed them.

2-----The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911, proceeding then to exterminate 1.5 million Armenians from 1914 - 1917.

More gunlaws statistics



Martin Bryant, killer or patsy?

It was commented that the kill rate was too high i.e., proportion of wounded to killed.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nedwood/Pam06.html

Joe Vialls, an independent investigator with thirty years direct experience of international military and oil field operations

"Though Australia has tens of thousands of skilled sporting shooters it has very few combat veterans, and even fewer special forces personnel trained to kill large numbers of people quickly in an enclosed space like the Broad Arrow Cafe, which is roughly the same size as mock-up rooms used for practicing the rescue of hostages being held in confined spaces by armed terrorists.

"It is hard to kill quickly under such circumstances for a number of unpleasant reasons, including the fact that shot people tend to fall against other people, shielding the latter from subsequent bullets.

"Targets therefore have to be shot in a careful sequence with split-second timing to maximise kill rates.

"Whoever was on the trigger in Tasmania managed a kill rate well above that required of a fully trained soldier, an impossible task for a man with Martin Bryant's mid-sixties IQ and his total lack of military training, which is an interesting but largely unimportant observation because we have already proved in absolute scientific terms that Bryant could not have acted alone."


Shooting skills far too conspicuous
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nedwood/Pam06.html

"In this his ultimate demonstration of combat shooting skill the shooter fired one sighting shot at a fast-moving target of unknown speed from an unsupported free-standing firing position, the most difficult of all; instantly and accurately compensated for vehicle speed and weapon recoil with the same blinding speed as the computer gunsight of an F14 Tomcat, then disabled both driver and vehicle with shots two and three.

"This man might have been an indispensable asset stopping speeding car-bombers in Beirut, but his professional skills were far too conspicuous for Port Arthur."


"One huge coverup"
Wendy Scurr
http://www.publicdebate.com.au/php/forums/getpost.php?post_nb=12660&page=2

"I have read Joe Vialls book, I was heavily involved in the Massacre itself, I was working at Port Arthur. I know that what Mr Vialls is stating is true and that the official version is one hell of a cover up. The video footage is one issue, the time factor is another, why did it take police 6 hrs to arrive except for one policeman at 4.30pm and two female officers at 5.30pm to control over 500 people and 5 major crime scenes.

"There many other issues to be considered. But it is one huge coverup."

Unexplained discrepancies
1 Whoever was on the trigger that fateful day demonstrated professional skills equal to some of the best special forces shooters in the world.

His critical error lay in killing too many people too quickly while injuring far too few, thereby exposing himself for what he was: a highly trained combat shooter probably ranked among the top 20 such specialists in the western world.
2 There was lack of forensic evidence at Port Arthur. There were no tests to matched Martin Bryant's guns and no fingerprint comparisons from the Broad Arrow Cafe.
3 Both the guns Martin Bryant supposedly used were damaged to the point where forensic tests to match cartridges to guns weren't possible. The damage to the guns could have occurred in either of two ways.

(1) A cartridge blowing up in the breach which would mean the user would have a damaged hand which Martin Bryant didn't have.

(2) Deliberate use of explosives remotely detonated, which is a trick learned by special forces to avoid make positive identification impossible. This must have been done somewhere other than where the guns were found at Seascape because, despite a thorough search of the area, some gun parts were never found. The guns shown to media were a reconstructed version with missing pieces supplied from police weapons archives, a fact which was never mentioned in the mass media.
4 No legally valid eye witnesses to the massacre. Out of the few survivors of the massacre who were able to identify the shooter, non were called on to identify Martin Bryant as the shooter. It was explained that these people had been put through enough trauma and their evidence would not be required.
5 Martin Bryant was left handed, the shooter was right handed.
6 Police decoyed away from scene just before shooting began on a "first time in history since records began" hoaxed call to pick up some heroin which turned out to be soap power.
7 Descriptions of the shooter didn't match. Eye witnesses to the shooting describe the shooter as being around 20 with golden blonde hair a few inches below his shoulders which was straight, with rat tails and a heavily pock-marked face.
Martin Bryant was 29, had whitish blonde, slightly curly hair which was just above shoulder length and a clear complexion.
8 Martin Bryant had an IQ of 66 (average IQ 90-110), making it hard to believe that he could have planned and executed the massacre with any degree of efficiency.
9 A refrigerated hearse large enough to hold 22 people was bought before the operation which was considered strange. After the massacre it was disposed of.
10 Martin Bryant underwent trial by media, assumed guilty, human rights abused.
11 Is it significant that no Jews nor Freemacs nor Politicians and their relatives 'were amongst the deads'?
12 Faked "first time ever" video showed overcast sky when the actual massacre happened when the sky was clear.

To this day efforts are still being made to prevent anybody getting a photo of Martin Bryant to compare with the video.
13 The very fact that his back was on fire when he exited Seascape Cottage, and the fact that he came out unarmed, and that he said "Don't shoot, I am the hostage", should have received immense scrutiny.
14 ASIO were on the scene too quickly making it look like they had fore knowledge. How soon was ASIO on the scene after the incident? What is meant by 'ASIO screened out some people'?
15 What Hobart logs of departure were falsified? enroute Melbourne CTR logs, Bankstown secondary arrival log falsified?

Various airport departure and arrival logs were falsified which points to a well co-ordinated escape strategy for the actual shooter and his accomplice.
16 30 year embargo on evidence
Anyone wishing to pursue the matter beyond this point should read the item "Port Arthur - What Next?" printed alongside Joe Vialls' report.



"We now know the weapons used were not the crippled AR-15 and FN-FAL found at Seascape, and we also know the shooter was not Martin Bryant, because he was completely contained by SOG personnel throughout the entire period in the same Seascape compound as both crippled weapons. " -- Joe Vialls

1. Both Martin Bryant's weapons were found CRIPPLED after the Seascape siege.

2. Somebody was firing back at police DURING the seige. What weapons were they using?



Problems with the guns used
http://geocities.com/vialls/index.html

Evidence relating to the guns used for the massacre, was backwards engineered starting off with the presumption that Martin Bryant was guilty.



Lack of forensic evidence
By Joe Vialls', "Deadly Deception at Port Arthur"

Martin Bryant had two guns - a Colt AR-15 and a Belgian FN-FAL.

There was an overnight siege at Seascape cottage where two gunmen kept police under fire. The next morning the building came alight and Martin Bryant came out of the building saying not to shoot that he was the hostage.

When Both Martin Bryant's weapons were recovered after the Seascape fire, it was discovered that both had damage to barrels, breech, and receiver, making "individual characteristic" matches with bullets and cartridge cases from the various crime scenes impossible to match.

"Sergeant Dutton's eighteen-page article on "ballistics" includes many photographs, but not one of them shows individual characteristics matching the bullets and cases at Port Arthur with the weapons at Seascape. Without individual characteristic matches, the weapons are no more valuable than scrap iron, and absolutely useless as evidence against Martin Bryant."

The AR-15 was found in the house after the fire and the FN-FAL was was recovered from the roof of an outhouse some distance from the main building.

Both guns damaged

Both the guns were damaged, one with a bent barrel and the other with the type of damage that either comes from an exploded cartridge in the breech, or being deliberately blown out.

"Special Forces typically know how to destroy enemy artillery pieces behind the lines. A sizeable chunk of C3 plastic explosive is strategically placed inside the breech of the artillery piece and then later detonated, destroying the breech and rendering the weapon useless."

In cases where a faulty cartridge causes a gun to explode it does serious damage to the hand of the person using the weapon. Yet Martin Bryant had no damage to his hands.

"The type of damage the guns displayed is consistent with a "faulty cartridge" exploding in the breech. However, in such cases the resulting explosion usually amputates a finger or two, and shreds the skin on the rest of the hand. In addition there is very significant marking of the flesh by firearms discharge residue (FDR), caused by microscopic particles of burned or unburned propellant impregnating the flesh at high velocity. When Bryant was taken into custody he had no injuries or serious burns to his hands, and no trace of FDR despite severe burns to his back and left-hand side caused by the Seascape fire."

Pieces of both guns had missing pieces

"Despite being terminally damaged, nearly all of the AR-15 components were located close to the weapon in Seascape, though the pistol grip was missing and was never found. However, the FN-FAL lacked a major component called the "return spring tube assembly" (without which the gun won't fire), plus its butt plate and magazine. These are all large items impossible to miss in thorough forensic searches of crime scenes. The forensic teams went over every crime scene with a fine-tooth comb several times, leaving no stone or even a blade of grass unturned."

Both guns reconstructed from police spare parts

Both the two guns Martin owned were damaged at Seascape, yet turned up later in police evidence complete and undamaged. The weapons on display were in near new condition because the Tasmanian Police reconstructed them with spare parts from the NSW Police firearms library - a fact which didn't receive media coverage.

Guns weren't damaged at Seascape

There were pieces missing from both guns which weren't found at Seascape. Therefore they must have been damaged at another location and the pieces planted at Seascape.

"Evidently both guns had been carefully "damaged" at a location a considerable distance away from either Port Arthur or Seascape, before the mass murder took place. Martin Bryant was completely contained by SOG personnel throughout the entire period in the same Seascape compound as both crippled weapons. The guns were probably dumped at Seascape as stage props long before any of the shooting started, ready to be collected and identified by the local constabulary the following morning."

Seascape Seige lasted throughout the night

Martin Bryant said he was the hostage, yet there were two people firing from Seascape. How did these two other people escape from Seascape?

"The siege lasted throughout the night and finally ending with Seascape being caught on fire and Martin Bryant coming out yelling, "don't shoot, I'm the hostage".

"Who was doing the shooting - Martin Bryant or the unknown person who supposedly set the house on fire when Martin fell asleep?"

What was Bryant shooting with?

What was Bryant firing at the police with if both guns were destroyed?

Why would somebody damage the guns to make positive identification impossible? Obviously to cover the fact they weren't the same.

Therefore the conclusion must be that it was a setup and Martin Bryant was the patsy.

The Psyop
http://geocities.com/vialls/index.html

Are we to believe that a bunch of planners sat round a table and arranged the premeditated murders of 35 Australians?

Unfortunately the answer is - Y E S !!

The initial reaction of most readers to the reality that Martin Bryant killed no-one at Port Arthur but was deliberately set up as a patsy is a combination of horror and complete disbelief.

All of the hard evidence at Port Arthur bears the distinctive trademark of a planned "psyop", meaning an operation designed to psychologically manipulate the belief mechanisms of a group of people or a nation for geopolitical or military reasons.

Because of their illegal nature, psyops are never formally ordered by governments, but are discreetly arranged through multinational corporations and others. Some psyops ordered during the last forty years are known to have been carried out by independent contractors hired from a small specialist group, staffed mostly by retired members of American and Israeli special forces.

Patsies are normally used as decoys, deliberately inserted into the psyop to deflect attention away from the specialist group, allowing the latter time to extract safely from the operational area while the patsy takes the blame, But the planners leave tell-tale signs and occasionally make critical mistakes.

It is a little-known fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was proved a patsy when a New Zealand newspaper printed a story about his guilt several hours before he was accused of the crime in Dallas. The planners put the decoy story on the news wires too early, forgetting the crucial time difference would allow the New Zealand paper to print the story long before Oswald was even accused. It was a single planning error, but one that proved in absolute scientific terms that Lee Harvey Oswald was deliberately set up as a patsy.

As part one of this report proved, policewoman Yvonne Fletcher's murder in London during 1984 was a psyop where the intended patsies were four million Libyans. The operation was successful and resulted in Tripoli being bombed by an 'outraged' President Reagan in 1986.

The next blatant psyop was Lockerbie, when on 21 December 1988 Pan American flight 103 exploded in mid-air killing all 259 passengers and crew. Although very recent scientific evidence not yet in the public domain proves conclusively that the Libyans could not have been responsible, they were nonetheless blamed for the atrocity. The principal affect of those two psyops on the Libyans were sanctions designed to prevent them updating defensive weapon systems capable of protecting their resource-rich nation.

Since 1984 Libyan defence capabilities have steadily declined, leaving its people and resources increasingly vulnerable to external attack and thus possible conquest. By a strange coincidence Australia is also a resource-rich nation, with overall reserves more than twenty times as valuable as those in Libya, but with only half the defence capability. In some ways this was not an insurmountable problem until 1996 because unlike Libya this nation has always had huge numbers of sporting shooters traditionally used in time of war to both train and supplement our miniscule armed forces. Not any more.

Since the psyop at Port Arthur more than 400,000 reserve forearms have been pulped instead of stored by the Federal Government, leaving our nation and people terribly exposed to just about anyone interested in taking over the natural resources jewel in the southern hemisphere crown. To hell with multinational global ambitions. This is Australia and we need to restore our reserve capability in order to keep this country the way it is. The first thing we have to do is prove once and for all time that Martin Bryant was used as a patsy to cover the objective of the Port Arthur psyop, which effectively undermined our national security.

In fact I am going to prove that now but doubt the Federal Government will be interested in the hard scientific facts, or in correcting the multiple gross errors made immediately after the massacre tool place. The harsh and unpalatable truth about Port Arthur will have to be forced on the Australian Government by the Australian People.

Martin Bryant, an intellectually impaired registered invalid with no training in the use of high powered assault weapons, could not under any circumstances have achieved or maintained the incredibly high and consistent killed-to-injured ratio and kill-rate which were bench marks of the port Arthur massacre.

Whoever was on the trigger that fateful day demonstrated professional skills equal to some of the BEST SPECIAL FORCES SHOOTERS IN THE WORLD.

HIS CRITICAL ERROR LAY IN KILLING TOO MANY PEOPLE TOO QUICKLY WHILE INJURING FAR TOO FEW, THEREBY EXPOSING HIMSELF FOR WHAT HE WAS: A HIGHLY TRAINED COMBAT SHOOTER PROBABLY RANKED AMONG THE TOP 20 SUCH SPECIALISTS IN THE WESTERN WORLD.

This inquiry will also look into:
(1)

Why the police were not able to attend Port Arthur until several hours later, and I mean suitably armed police.
(2)

Why the Tasmanian Police force was unable to contain "a solitary gunman" without interstate help.
(3)

Why the exit door on a public building was unable to open, thus costing seven lives.
(4)

How a suspect who had not been arrested, charged, or even ID'ed, could be identified via the media thus violating his right to an unprejudiced trial.
(5)

The concerted events & circumstances that transpired to alter Bryant's plea to guilty

(A period of 9 months (?) lapsed before Martin Bryant was eventually persuaded to plead guillty, which was done under emotional duress and much coaxing.)
(6)

Why a trial never took place despite Bryant's plea of innocent.
(7)

Why the law was subverted by not holding an inquest.
(8)

How a federal politician was able to subvert the Constitution and instruct the Judiciary.
(9)

The lack of official help and support for victims/survivors.
(10)

Addressing the anomalies and plethora of "coincidences" relating to Port Arthur.

http://www.publicdebate.com.au/php/forums/getpost.php?post_nb=12762&page=6

I have 2 more to add to it now...

(11) Why has the court accepted conflicting evidence that contradicts the DPPs own case, namely the Balasko Video of the gunman leaving the cafe, which is completely in error to the Transcripted version of events when the gunman left the cafe?

(12) And why has the McLeod Video which was also evidenced, tampered with before showing on Current Affair?

http://www.publicdebate.com.au/php/forums/getpost.php?post_nb=12768&page=6

http://www.publicdebate.com.au/php/forums/getpost.php?post_nb=12809&page=8

On the way to Port Arthur, the gunman stopped at a broken down car that had overheated, and purchased some marijuana from a girl there for $50. It would appear that for the entire day, all purchases were made with either $50 notes, or with small change, and of course with such an important mission, why all these little conspicuous attention getting diversions on the way there.

Anyone would think that someone wanted Martin Bryant noticed!

Now, why would "Bryant" have bought marijuana, the Mullen report states "Mr Bryant reports no use of illicit drugs, specifically denying using cannabis, opiates and amphetamines." Also in the court transcript p247,

Q. Do you carry matches with you?

Martin...Not very often, I don't smoke so there's no reason for me to carry matches or lighters.

Q. You don't smoke at all?

Martin...No, not at all.

Q. Have you ever had a smoke Martin or?

Martin...No, not at all. So here we have a major stuff up in the master plan, it is very obvious that Martin Bryant would not have bought Marijuana. Invariably, when you plan a lie, you will be undone by the simple things.

* Martin's lawyer's conflict of interest

http://www.publicdebate.com.au/php/forums/getpost.php?post_nb=12811&page=8

I agree with what you say about training people with Video Shooting for sighted pistol shooting, but that cannot possibly apply for a high power rifle shot from the hip. Martin Bryant only fired about 20 shots from each gun in practise, and the Daiwoo shotgun was considered too dangerous by Bryant because he did not like the ejected shells whizzing past his face. And I am sure that even your cursory examination of events has revealed that the gunman shot from the Right Hip with great accuracy, with many of the shots being at a range of 3 -4 metres.

So how could Bryant have achieved the necessary skills that Brigadier Ted Serong states were better than he was [able to achieve] in Vietnam, and as if anyone that was left handed is going to shoot right handed, and why would you want to change hands.

Gunman right handed, Martin Bryant left handed

http://www.publicdebate.com.au/php/forums/getpost.php?post_nb=12813&page=9

Was it "foolish" of me to suggest something smelly when the main witness on the day is told "you will not be required as a witness". Eyewitness accounts are essential to Justice Brian! I repeat Brian, Bryant was not/ never/ wasn't apprehended "on the spot"!

He was actually arrested 4 kilometres from the main crime scene,

http://www.publicdebate.com.au/php/forums/getpost.php?post_nb=12836&page=10

Only drug decoy in history

The only personnel available to stop or interrupt the slaughter were two policemen, one stationed in Nubeena 11 kilometres from the Port Arthur site, (map) and the other at Dunalley, a small town to the north with a swing bridge capable of isolating the Tasman Peninsula from the rest of Tasmania.

Shortly before the massacre both policemen were sent to the coal mines near Saltwater River, an isolated location on the extreme western side of the Tasman Peninsula, in response to an anonymous caller reporting a large stash of heroin. On arrival they found only glass jars full of soap powder, and reported this via the police radio net.

A harmless time consuming prank perhaps?

No. Reliable sources in Hobart state that this was the only drugs decoy ever attempted on the Tasman Peninsula since police records began, and meaningfully point out that leaving glass jars of fresh soap powder was a very professional touch that backfired.

Why would anyone assume the soap powder was heroin and place an emergency call to the police without checking the contents first?

And why did the caller insist on anonymity?

Graeme Scurr makes the valid point that it would be hard to select a more suitable remote location if specifically decoying the two policemen away from the Port Arthur historic site and Dunalley.

A single glance at a map of the Tasman Peninsula proves his observation to be absolutely correct.

50 Unanswered Questions About Port Arthur

Details That Point to a Coverup At Port Arthur

This information is from The Shooters Party web site, USA.
http://www.2012.com.au

Before looking at the unanswered questions one needs to be aware of what it is alleged Bryant did that day.

Below is a summary

The case against Martin Bryant alleged he killed Mr. & Mrs. Martin at Seascape Cottage Guesthouse sometime before 12.40pm then travelled south 6km to see a Mr. Larner then proceeded into the Port Arthur Historic Site and after an argument with the parking attendant went to the Broad Arrow Cafe and bought lunch.

He sat having lunch inside then went outside to finish it. At 1.30pm he then went back inside the Cafe and opened fire with a COLT M16 CAR .223 Cal. Rifle killing 20 and wounding another 12 people in 90 seconds then left the Cafe shooting at people in and around the bus park killing and wounding more - during that time he switched guns to an FN SLR .308 Rifle .

He then is alleged to have driven his yellow Volvo out of the site shooting people along the way and at the tollbooth. He then abandons his car and transfers some of his implements to a BMW which belonged to his victims at the tollgate (he leaves behind the keys to Seascape, cans of petrol and a Daewoo Shotgun and ammo) .

He then stops at the service station up the road shooting more people and takes a hostage who is forced into the boot of the BMW. The BMW then proceeds at high speed 6 km north to Seascape where he stops and shoots at cars on the highway injuring more people. He then takes his hostage inside Seascape and sets fire to the BMW.

The time is now around 2pm. Two police officers are confined in a ditch for several hours while shots are fired from Seascape. After dark Special Operations Group Police (SOG) arrive at Seascape. During the night police talk on the phone to someone identified as "Jamie" at Seascape. Many shots are fired from Seascape during the night but nobody outside is hit.. At 7.45am the following morning Seascape erupts in smoke on fire.

At 8.40am Martin Bryant - clothes on fire emerges from the rear of Seascape staggering and unarmed and is apprehended by police with TV News cameras rolling. Bryant remains in hospital isolated for several days. He is then moved to Risdon prison hospital. He denies committing the shootings to police when interviewed.

He pleads not guilty for months. His first lawyer is removed in unclear circumstances and his second lawyer gets him (reportedly under pressure) to later plead guilty (thereby avoiding the requirement for a proper jury trial and scrutiny of evidence). Bryant's isolation continues to this day with little or no contact with his mother or relatives.



http://web.archive.org/web/20100529033358/http://www.nickmaine.info/Documents/who_ordered_port_arthur_massacre.htm
Who ordered the Port Arthur Massacre
There have been various bombings and massacres here and abroad. I have been a bit wary of them as some have been hoaxes, however I have very little doubt about the Port Arthur massacre and the reason for it. I have spoken personally to Wendy Scurr who is mentioned in item 6 and she is adamant that it was not Martin Bryant who did the shooting. A trained investigator Joe Vialls also came up with the same conclusion and wrote a well researched book on the subject.

I have received the following from a person in Tasmania and am passing it on.

*********************************************************************************************

The Port Arthur Massacre, and its connections with the London Bombings.

On Wednesday 26 September Mr Andrew MacGregor will present a common sense view of the latest World Terrorist attacks that occurred in London and Glasgow two days after Gordon Brown became the British Prime Minister. He will also discuss the Tasmanian connection to these incidents. It will be alleged that several important bureaucrats some of who are still active in public life, were involved in the planning and execution of the Port Arthur massacre.

Mr MacGregor has had 17 years experience in the Victoria Police Force and has studied Witness Reports, Court Documents,Police Reports and Media Reports. He will show how the Port Arthur Massacre fits into a pattern very similar to other staged terrorist events throughout the world.

Wed. 26 Semptember 2007 at 7.30 pm Max Fry Hall, Trevallyn, Launceston Admission $5.00 Concessions $2.00

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

You probably believe that Martin Bryant, acting alone, carried out the Port Arthur massacre on Sunday 28th April 1996. If so, can you reconcile the following facts with the official story?

Martin Bryant was 58 kilometres away when Mr David Martin was shot at Seascape Cottage. At 10.40 am.

1. On the Sunday morning, two hours before the murders, ten of the senior managers of Port Arthur were taken to safety many miles away up the east coast,for a two day seminar with a vague agenda and no visiting speakers. Was the timing of this trip a mere coincidence?

2. Also just before the shootings the only two policemen in the region were called away on a wild goose chase. They were sent to the Coal Mine at Salt Water River, to investigate a heroin drug stash which turned out to be soap powder. This was too far for them to get to the Broad Arrow Cafe in time to be of any use. Had a policeman remained at Dunalley he would have closed the swing bridge to prevent the killer(s) from escaping from the peninsula. Did Bryant, IQ 66, organise this decoy?

3. Big Mortuary Truck. Before the massacre, a specially-built 22 person capacity mortuary truck was built. It attracted some derision at the time, but its effective use at Port Arthur was unquestioned. After the massacre it was advertised, unsuccessfully, for sale via the internet, then converted for another purpose. Without the foresight of Port Arthur, why build it? When it had proven its worth, why get rid of it? Another coincidence?

4. Martin Bryant has never been properly identified as the gunman. A young woman who ate her lunch near the gunman just before 1.30 said he had a freckled face. Graham Collyer, the wounded ex-soldier, who had the best opportunity to observe the killer, said he had a pock-marked or acned face. Neither description fits Bryant who has a beautifully smooth complexion. Graham Collyer says that it was not Bryant who shot him in the neck.

5. Illegal Photo. On 30th April the Hobart Mercury printed a week old photo of Martin Bryant on the front page. This was illegal because at that stage some of the witnesses had not yet been asked to identify the killer, and the photo would have become fixed in the minds of the witnesses. When one witness was asked to describe the clothing worn by the gunman, she described the clothing on the photo instead of what the gunman had worn. The Mercury newspaper was not prosecuted for breaking the law.

6. Mrs Wendy Scurr, nurse, tour guide and Ambulance Officer, rang the police at 1.32 pm to report the shooting. She and other medics then cared for the injured and the dead without any police protection for six and a half hours. Who ordered the armed police to stop at Tarana, where they had a barbecue? The police who arrived by boats were a stone's throw away from the main crime scene, the cafe, and they too failed to come in to see what was going on. Was this meant to increase the trauma of the survivors?

7. Three more shots were fired at Port Arthur at 6.30pm while Bryant was at Seascape. Who fired those shots?

8. Same Question - Different Answer. At a recent Forensics Seminar in Queensland where the Tasmanian Police forensic gun inspector, Gerard Dutton, gave a lecture, the first question came from Mr Ian McNiven. He asked if there was any empirical evidence to link Martin Bryant to the Broad Arrow Cafe. Sargent Dutton immediately closed the 15 minute question time and would not reply. When McNiven managed to say "I have here Graham Collyer's police statement...", Sgt Dutton threatened him with arrest and called for security agents to escort McNiven out of the building. When Dutton was asked the same question in America by a Doctor at an American seminar, he replied truthfully - "There is no empirical evidence to link Bryant to the cafe".

9. Yet a police video tape exists which proves that the police had an excellent opportunity to get DNA samples and finger prints of the gunman. The video briefly shows the blue sports bag on a cafe table. The gunman had carried his 3 rifles in this bag and left it right next to his drinking glass, his Solo soft drink can, knife, fork, plate, video cameras, etc. Why did the police fail to take DNA samples and finger prints?

10. According to the official story, Bryant first killed David and Sally Martin at Seascape Cottage in the morning, then went on to Port Arthur. Yet two policemen have reported seeing a naked woman with black hair, screaming and running from one building to another at Seascape well into the afternoon. If Sally Martin was dead, who was this woman?

11. Proof of other gunmen in Seascape Cottage. While Bryant was calmly talking to police by telephone in the cottage during the 'siege' and the conversation was recorded, someone else fired an SKK rifle 20 times. In the transcript the gunfire is recorded as 'coughs' but an electronic analysis of one of the 'coughs' shows that it was an SKK shot.

12. Two More Very Handy Seminars. On the Sunday morning, some 25 specialist doctors (Royal Australian College of Surgeons) from all over Australia had attended a training course in Hobart, and their last lecture was on Terrorist Attack and Gunshot Wounds. They stayed on to take care of the wounded victims.

13. Also, more than 700 reporters from 17 nations came to a seminar in Hobart. They were asked to arrive during the week-end as the seminar was due to begin early on Monday morning. How handy to have 700 scribblers churning out their anti-gun and disarmament propaganda to the whole world!

14. "There will never be uniform Gun Laws in Australia until we see a massacre somewhere in Tasmania", said Barry Unsworth, NSW Premier, December, 1987 at a conference in Hobart. Prophecy or Planning?

15. "If we don't get it right this time (gun laws) next time there is a massacre, and there will be, then they'll take all our guns off us", said the deputy prime minister, Tim Fischer in May 1996. Who is the "THEY" who would order the removal of our guns? Did Fischer let slip that gun confiscation has been ordered by someone other than our own leaders?

16. No Respect for the Law. Our laws demand that a Coronial Inquiry must take place (a) when foreign nationals are killed (b) when anyone dies in a fire John Howard acted illegally when he ordered the Coronial Inquiry to be abandoned.

17. It is evident that the massacre was planned to happen on the ferry which sailed to the Isle of the Dead every day. The victims were to be eighty elderly American tourists who had come in two coaches. But the plan went awry because the sailing time of the ferry had changed from 1.30 to
2.00 pm.

All the preparations were made for a 1.30 massacre, so the killer began his work at the Broad Arrow Cafe at 1.30, instead of on the ferry at 2.00.

Here is some evidence suggesting that the plan was to kill the Americans at 1.30 on the way to the Isle of the Dead where tourists are shown the ancient convict cemetery -

(a) The gunman had tried to buy a ticket for the 1.30 sailing.
(b) When the gunman began pulling out his weapons in the Cafe, one Professional witness [Anthony Nightingale] stood up shouting "No, no, not here!!" If it was not meant to be "here", then it was meant to be somewhere else. Nightingale was shot for he had obviously given the game away.

(c) Had the gunman waited for the 2.00 sailing, the decoyed policemen may have returned with their firearms and two-way radios and upset things.

(d) Also, with the later start the trauma surgeons at the Royal Hobart Hospital may have dispersed and not been available to treated the wounded victims.
(e) In a video made by the Tasmania Police we are told that some policemen came by sea to Port Arthur in patrol boats. These police did not go ashore. They did not come to the crime scenes at the Cafe or elsewhere to help the victims or to guard the First Aid workers who needed protection. Obviously they expected a massacre at sea, when they saw nothing they returned to Hobart.
(f) On his way to the Historic Site the gunman stopped to help some girls who had problems with their car. He told them of his intention to kill some WASPS [Wealthy Anglo-Saxon Protestants] the Isle of the Dead.
(g) On the very day Martin Bryant was being sentenced in Hobart, President Clinton was addressing the Australian Parliament in Canberra. Was he there to make sure poor Martin copped the blame for the massacre and that nothing went wrong with the gun confiscation scheme, which of course was the reason for the Port Arthur Massacre?

***********************************************************************************************